Here's how it works: You send a text message that's encrypted on your device. It passes through Apple servers as jumbled code nobody can crack. And it can only get decrypted by your friend's iPhone passcode.

Google (GOOG) has announced it's doing the same for its Android devices.

The FBI director isn't pleased.

"The notion that people have devices... that with court orders, based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism, we could never open that phone? My sense is that we've gone too far when we've gone there," Comey told CBS.

Comey compared selling iPhones to selling "cars with trunks that couldn't ever be opened by law enforcement with a court order."

But there are two things that are wrong with that statement:

1) The FBI can still get your phone data. Now, they can't do it secretly by going to Apple or Google. Agents must knock on your front door with a warrant in hand -- the way it's always been.

If you don't give the FBI access to your phone, it can ask a federal judge to force you. If you refuse, the government can throw you in jail and hold you in contempt of court.

The FBI and Apple did not respond to requests for comment.

Joel Kurtzberg is a New York lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases (in which journalists often refuse court orders to disclose sources). He said the biggest difference now is that the FBI can't be covert when it wants your data.

"This is going to make it harder for law enforcement. Now, they'll have to tip off their target," he said. "And it will result in instances where someone will destroy evidence."

Here's how it works: You send a text message that's encrypted on your device. It passes through Apple servers as jumbled code nobody can crack. And it can only get decrypted by your friend's iPhone passcode.

Google (GOOG) has announced it's doing the same for its Android devices.

The FBI director isn't pleased.

"The notion that people have devices... that with court orders, based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism, we could never open that phone? My sense is that we've gone too far when we've gone there," Comey told CBS.

Comey compared selling iPhones to selling "cars with trunks that couldn't ever be opened by law enforcement with a court order."

But there are two things that are wrong with that statement:

1) The FBI can still get your phone data. Now, they can't do it secretly by going to Apple or Google. Agents must knock on your front door with a warrant in hand -- the way it's always been.

If you don't give the FBI access to your phone, it can ask a federal judge to force you. If you refuse, the government can throw you in jail and hold you in contempt of court.

The FBI and Apple did not respond to requests for comment.

Joel Kurtzberg is a New York lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases (in which journalists often refuse court orders to disclose sources). He said the biggest difference now is that the FBI can't be covert when it wants your data.

"This is going to make it harder for law enforcement. Now, they'll have to tip off their target," he said. "And it will result in instances where someone will destroy evidence."

Here's how it works: You send a text message that's encrypted on your device. It passes through Apple servers as jumbled code nobody can crack. And it can only get decrypted by your friend's iPhone passcode.

Google (GOOG) has announced it's doing the same for its Android devices.

The FBI director isn't pleased.

"The notion that people have devices... that with court orders, based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism, we could never open that phone? My sense is that we've gone too far when we've gone there," Comey told CBS.

Comey compared selling iPhones to selling "cars with trunks that couldn't ever be opened by law enforcement with a court order."

But there are two things that are wrong with that statement:

1) The FBI can still get your phone data. Now, they can't do it secretly by going to Apple or Google. Agents must knock on your front door with a warrant in hand -- the way it's always been.

If you don't give the FBI access to your phone, it can ask a federal judge to force you. If you refuse, the government can throw you in jail and hold you in contempt of court.

The FBI and Apple did not respond to requests for comment.

Joel Kurtzberg is a New York lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases (in which journalists often refuse court orders to disclose sources). He said the biggest difference now is that the FBI can't be covert when it wants your data.

"This is going to make it harder for law enforcement. Now, they'll have to tip off their target," he said. "And it will result in instances where someone will destroy evidence."

This is good. Now I can go back to putting whores into my contacts list by age, height, location and rate, instead of names. Names are useless, especially when you got 3 Mercedes and a couple Nevaehs to sift through.

Anyway, good for Apple, they finally did one thing right for their customers.

Click to expand...

That may be a small part of it, but lets be honest, this takes them out of the loop for requests for data that they don't (and shouldn't) have to answer from agencies looking for data without a warrant. It saves them time, money, and a possible future lawsuit.

Here's a tip. If there is a way to recover/reset your password, you're not the only one who knows it.

iMessage is technically sound, the issue however is that Apple is issuing and handling the public keys, so they know what they are. It boils down to how much you can trust Apple (or any other service that uses similar encryption methods).

Also, the whole fingerprint scanner for security has an inherent flaw. The government can compel you to place your finger on a scanner, they however cannot force you to divulge a password. If you use a fingerprint scanner, use an uncommon finger or different part of your hand, thus forcing it to require a password after so many wrong attempts.